16-3011 Weng v. Sessions BIA Van Wyke, IJ A087 783 685 

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS **FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT** 

## SUMMARY ORDER

**RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF**  **APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT** = **S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN**  **ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.**  **At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals** 1 **for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall** 2 **United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of** 3 **New York, on the 13 th**  **day of July, two thousand eighteen.** 4 5 **PRESENT:** 6 **JOSÉ A. CABRANES,** 7 **ROSEMARY S. POOLER,** 8 **CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY,** 9 Circuit Judges. 10

**_____________________________________** 11 12 **JIA MING WENG,** 13 Petitioner **,** 14 15 **v. 16-3011** 16 **NAC** 17 **JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,** 18 **UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,** 19 Respondent **.** 20

**_____________________________________** 21 22 **FOR PETITIONER:** Mona Liza F. Lao, New York, NY. 23 24 **FOR RESPONDENT:** Chad A. Readler, Acting Assistant 25 Attorney General; Holly M. Smith, 26 Senior Litigation Counsel; Nehal 27 H. Kamani, Trial Attorney, Office 28 of Immigration Litigation, United 292 States Department of Justice, 1 Washington, DC. 2 3 UPON DUE CONSIDERATION of this petition for review of a 4 Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision, it is hereby 5 ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the petition for review 6 is DENIED. 7 Petitioner Jia Ming Weng, a native and citizen of the 8 People’s Republic of China, seeks review of an August 3, 2016, 9 decision of the BIA affirming a February 27, 2015, decision 10 of an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) denying Weng’s application for 11 asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the 12 Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). In re Jia Ming Weng, No. 13

A 087 783 685 (B.I.A. Aug. 3, 2016), aff’g No. A 087 783 685 14 (Immig. Ct. N.Y. City Feb. 27, 2015). We assume the parties’ 15 familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history 16 in this case. 17 Under the circumstances of this case, we have reviewed 18 the IJ’s decision as modified by the BIA. See Xue Hong Yang 19 v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice , 426 F.3d 520, 522 (2d Cir. 2005). 20 The standards of review are well established. 8 U.S.C. 213 § 1252(b)(4)(B); Xiu Xia Lin v. Mukasey , 534 F.3d 162, 165- 1 66 (2d Cir. 2008). 2 The agency may, “[c]onsidering the totality of the 3 circumstances,” base an adverse credibility determination on 4 the applicant’s “demeanor, candor, or responsiveness,” the 5 “inherent plausibility of the applicant’s . . . account,” any 6 inconsistencies in the appli cant’s oral or written 7 statements, or “any other relevant factor.” 8 U.S.C. 8 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); see also Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 163- 9 64. “We defer . . . to an IJ’s credibility determination 10 unless . . . it is plain that no reasonable fact-finder could 11 make such an adverse credibility ruling.” Xiu Xia Lin , 534 12

F.3d at 167. 13 Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination 14 that Weng was not credible. The agency reasonably relied on 15 internal inconsistencies in Weng’s testimony about where he 16 attended his first house church serv ice after his arrest, and 17 whether he called the pastor to find out where the service 18 would be. It also properly considered that Weng’s testimony 19 was implausible when he stated that he did not know any of 20 the guards at the house church services, although he attended 214 services regularly for two years and knew that the guards 1 were church members who were assigned by the pastor. 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Ming Xia Chen v. B.I.A. , 435 F.3d 141, 3 146 (2d Cir. 2006). The agency’s negative demeanor finding, 4 which Weng does not challenge, provides further support for 5 the adverse credibility ruling. Li Hua Lin v. U.S. Dep’t of 6 Justice , 453 F.3d 99, 109 (2d Cir. 2006). And Weng’s 7 corroborating evidence did not rehabilitate his testimony, 8 especially because the baptism certificate he submitted was 9 a fill-in-the-blank form that seeme d to be from a government10 sanctioned church rather than an illegal house church. Biao 11 Yang v. Gonzales , 496 F.3d 268, 273 (2d Cir. 2007). 12 These discrepancies call into question whether Weng 13 attended a house church in China and provide substantial 14 evidence for the agency’s determination that Weng’s past 15 persecution claim was not credible. 8 U.S.C. 16 § 1158(b)(1)(B)(iii); Xiu Xia Lin , 534 F.3d at 166-67. To 17 the extent that Weng relies on the alleged past persecution 18 to argue that he is eligible for asylum, withholding of 19 removal, and CAT relief, this adverse credibility 20 determination is dispositive. Paul v. Gonzales , 444 F.3d 215 148, 156-57 (2d Cir. 2006). And Weng does not challenge the 1 agency’s conclusion that he failed to establish a well2 founded fear of persecution or a likelihood of torture based 3 on his current practice of Christianity. Yueqing Zhang v. 4

Gonzales , 426 F.3d 540, 545 n.7 (2d Cir. 2005). 5 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is 6 DENIED. As we have completed our rev iew, any stay of removal 7 that the Court previously granted in this petition is VACATED, 8 and any pending motion for a stay of removal in this petition 9 is DISMISSED as moot. Any pending request for oral argument 10 in this petition is DENIED in accordance with Federal Rule of 11 Appellate Procedure 34(a)(2), and S econd Circuit Local Rule 12 34.1(b). 13

14 FOR THE COURT: 15 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, 16 Clerk of Court 17